On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 02:57:39PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > On Mon Jun 8, 2026 at 1:41 PM CEST, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:37:23PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > >> Currently drm_bridge_connector_init() always returns the added connector or > >> errors out. When adding bridge hotplug the bridge-connector can be > >> successfully initialized without creating a connector, which can be added > >> later when the pipeline will be complete. > >> > >> For this the internal function drm_bridge_connector_add_connector() must be > >> able to return a valid drm_bridge_connector even without any drm_connector. > >> > >> In preparation to support bridge hotplug, change its return value to be the > >> same drm_bridge_connector pointer it gets as input, or a PTR_ERR. > >> > >> No functional changes, just changing an internal API. > >> > >> Note the return value could now become an int (0 or negative error) because > >> returning the same value received as input does not carry any added > >> value. However this would be change a lot of lines, so leave such change as > >> a future cleanup. > > > > You just created that function and changed "a lot of lines" already, so > > I'm not sure that argument holds. > > Do you refer to the previous patch? > > My comment is more about the following patches. It means I separated > changes moving code to a subfunction from changes to the the return value > in separate patches, so that each patch is trivial to review for > correctness. > > Makes sense?
What confused me is that I took it as "I'm not going to do that work (yet?)". If you do it later on, I'd drop the "future cleanup" part, or rephrase it. Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
